April 23, 2012 "Information
Clearing House" --- Syria's
a battle zone. Western generated violence is to blame, not
Assad. America's media scoundrels claim otherwise. They want
him ousted by any means, including war.

An April 9
Wall Street Journal commentary said "Syrian
government forces (keep) bombing and killing...." Assad
"reneged on (his) promises to end the bloodshed."

Washington "and
its allies (are) doing little or nothing to depose (his)
regime. (The) illusion of diplomatic progress serves as
cover for the Assads of the world to do more killing. Your
move, President Obama."

Like all
scoundrel media commentators, Journal contributors blame
victims, not villains. Their readers are betrayed, not
informed.

Wall Street
Journal contributor
Fouad Ajami long ago sold out to imperial
interests for whatever he gets in return. He showed it in an
op-ed headlined, "A Kosovo Model for Syria," saying:

"In the Obama
world, the tendency to wait has become official policy: It
is either boots on the ground or head in the sand."

He'd "be wise
to consider the way Bill Clinton dealt with the crisis of
Kosovo in 1999. He authorized a NATO air campaign against
Serbia that began on March 23, 1999, the very same day a
bipartisan majority in both houses of Congress voted to
support it."

Fact check

Bombing
Yugoslavia for 78 days violated international law, as well
as US constitutional and statute laws. It was also
humanitarian hypocrisy.

It was lawless,
premeditated aggression. Ajami thinks it's a good thing. So
do other scoundrel media contributors like him. Yale Law
Professor
Bruce Ackerman said America "suffered one
casualty in the (Serbia/Kosovo) war. (The) rule of law (was)
blown to pieces."

While Congress
appropriated funds for the war, it never authorized it.
Presidents can't do it on their own. It hasn't stopped them
since WW II. Roosevelt's war was the last one Congress
declared. Failure to do so made others following it illegal,
Obama's wars included.

"THE ONLY good
news about Syria since the Obama administrationís embrace of
an unworkable United Nations peace plan is the hints that it
is beginning to consider alternatives."

Assad "will
never be induced by diplomacy to end his assaults on Syrian
cities, allow peaceful demonstrations or release political
prisoners...."

Obama has "to
recognize these realities and embrace options that actually
can advance its stated goal of ending Mr. Assadís rule."

"Mr. Assad will
fall only when his attacks are blocked and countered; it
follows that U.S. policy should aim at that."

The Post urges
"feckless diplomacy" ended in favor of immediate military
action. Hawkish throughout the conflict, its position heads
toward boiling over. Can war be far behind?

Hillary
Clinton's notoriously hawkish. So is UN envoy Susan Rice.
Critics call her "Rice-a-phony." She's an over-ambitious
zealot angling for Clinton's job. Her rhetoric makes some
observers gasp. It gives diplomacy a bad name and then some.

After Security
Council Resolution 2043 passed, authorizing up to 300
unarmed military Syrian monitors,
she
couldn't hold back.

She said "300
or even 3,000 (won't halt Assad) from waging (his) barbaric
campaign of violence against the Syrian people." Only
"intensified external pressure (can halt his) murderous
rampage."

She suggested
tough measures are coming, saying "let there be no doubt:
we, our allies and others in this body are planning and
preparing for those actions....if the Assad regime persists
in the slaughter of the Syrian people."

The Post also
wants tough talk followed by tougher action. Minimally it
supports "modest military force." Perhaps it considers
Serbia/Kosovo a template. Perhaps it needs brushing up on US
and international law, as well as who initiated lawless
conflict and who confronted it responsibly.

Syria was calm
and peaceful until Washington unleashed its dogs. US Special
Forces direct them on the ground. So do UK ones. They attack
hard and soft targets alike. They have Turkish safe haven
sanctuaries. Post and other media scoundrels omit what's
most important.

Ignoring Obama
administration lies and its own, a
New
York Times editorial headlined "Assad's Lies,"
saying:

"Activists"
cited are stooges for power. Throughout the conflict, Times
articles, op-eds, and editorials shamelessly blamed Assad
for Western generated crimes. Ban Ki-moon does the same
thing. Kofi Annan did it before him.

Both have
shameless records of failure and betrayal. Assurance it
would turn out that way got them their jobs. Only imperial
loyalists qualify. Only media scoundrels claim otherwise or
say nothing about their support for lawless wars and
inaction to stop them.

The Times said
his "cruelty and blindness were predictable. What is
unfathomable is why Russia and China continue to support
him....Even now, Russian officials put much of the blame for
the bloodshed on the fractured, mostly peaceful opposition
forces, not the Syrian Army with its heavy weapons."

"Russia sells
arms to Syria....China seems determined to deny the West
another 'win....' "

Fact check

Times opinion
writers mock truth and full disclosure. Anyone trying better
find another line of work. Only imperial loyalty matters.
Facts are sacrificed to support it.

In response to
insurgent violence, Assad confronts it responsibly. Syrians
count on him. He's their only means of defense. Russia and
China are the only permanent Security Council members
preventing Washington from getting another war trophy - so
far.

Unless stopped,
the entire Mediterranean Basin to Russia and China's borders
will be US controlled territory. If achieved, their
sovereignty is next. Both countries know it. They're not
about to back off and do nothing. Hopefully, they've drawn
red lines they'll challenge if crossed.

The Times
accused both countries of "tarnishing their global
reputations." It claims they're "alienating governments and
people throughout the region....And when (Assad) falls - and
he will - the people of Syria will blame them for their
complicity in this bloodbath. Their enabling just gives
(Assad) more time to kill....(A) wider war (is) more
likely."

The last
statement's the only true one. The Arab street depends on
whatever help Russia and China provide. Brutal despots
oppress them - notably in Saudi Arabia and Bahrain. They're
perhaps Washington's closest allies. In return, they're free
to commit unspeakable crimes and atrocities.

The Times
stopped only short of urging war. Perhaps it's coming in
time. It supports all imperial wars. Watch for a future
editorial calling for another couched in humanitarian
intervention language.

Scoundrel media
never report truths. They never get it right. They never
apologize after the fact. They support power and privilege
only. No matter the huge body count, one war after another
is cheerled in an endless cycle of violence, destruction,
and human misery.

How long before
Obama launches another one. Scoundrel media support smooths
the way. Increasingly it looks likely. Syria tops the queue.
Can Iran be far behind?

Stephen
Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at
lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

Also visit
his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to
cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the
Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network
Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays
at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/.